Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. The appellant was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak for offences under Section 394, IPC and also Section 394 read with Section 397, IPC. However, vide judgment dated 2-5-1994, the trial Court acquitted the appellant under Section 397, IPC and converted the charge under Section 394, IPC to that under Section 392. IPC. The appellant was, accordingly, convicted under Section 392, IPC. Thereafter on 3-5-1994, the trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250.00 for the said offence. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Hence, this appeal. 2. The occurrence in question had taken place on 6-6-1988 at about 8.30 p.m. when Rishipal Singh complainant, who was a student of 10+2 in Senior Secondary School, Rohtak, was walking on foot towards his village. When he reached on the Kutcha Beri Road near New Anaj Mandi gate, two young boys came from behind and stopped him by saying that he should surrender, whatever he was possessing. One of the accused, who was wearing red shirt, gave a fist blow on his face, while the other, who was supporting long hair on his head, showed him a knife. The first boy took out the identity card and Rs. 142.00 from the front pocket of the complainant, besides taking off his wrist watch. Both the boys thereafter fled away. They were seen by the complainant in the light of torch. Both boys were in the age group of 18-20 years. While one of them was having a stout body, the other one was slim and smart. Both were wearing pant and shirt. According to the complainant, he could identity both the boys, who had robbed him of his articles, if they were brought before him. The aforementioned statement was made by Rishipal Singh complainant before SI Gian Singh on the same evening at 9.25 p.m. when he met him in the chowk on the Jhajjar Road in the city of Rohtak. The said statement, along with endorsement made by SI Gian Singh, was then sent to Police Station City, Rohtak through C. Baljit Singh on the basis of which formal FIR under Section 392, IPC came into being, about half an hour later, i.e. 9.50 p.m. 3. The said statement, along with endorsement made by SI Gian Singh, was then sent to Police Station City, Rohtak through C. Baljit Singh on the basis of which formal FIR under Section 392, IPC came into being, about half an hour later, i.e. 9.50 p.m. 3. The investigation of the case was taken up by SI Gian Singh, who went to the spot and prepared site plan Ex. PE. On the fol lowing day, i.e. on 7-6-1988, the complain ant along with SI Gian Singh reached in front of the Anaj Mandi Gate near FCI Godown, where the two boys, who had robbed the complainant a day before, were seen sitting. The complainant apprised the police party about them. On seeing the police party approaching them the two boys started running, but were apprehended. Personal search of the appellant led to the recovery of watch Ex. P1, two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 20.00 each, which were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex. PC. The complainant identified the watch to be belonging to him. The search of Daya Kishan, co-accused of the appellant led to the recovery of one identity card Ex. P2, along with an amount of Rs. 50.00 , which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PD. During the investigation of the case, Sant Lal P.W. who had earlier gifted watch Ex. P1 to the complainant, also identified the same. 4. After presentation of the challan and commitment of the case, charges as mentioned above were framed against both the accused on 25-11-1988. The trial proceeded but on 8-5-1990, Daya Kishan accused, who was on bail, did not appear as he was reported to have died. Finally, after obtaining report from S.H.O. the trial Court disposed of the case against him on 5-11-1990 as having abated. On the next date, i.e. 7-6-1991, the appellant became absent. He was later on produced on 7-5-1992 in execution of production warrants. Supplementary challan was accordingly presented and after commitment of the case, charges under Sections 394 and 397 were framed against him. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Sant Lal P.W. 1, who identified the watch Ex. Pi, which was gifted by him to the complainant in the year 1978-79. Niranjan Dass Patwari P.W. 2 proved scaled site plan Ex. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Sant Lal P.W. 1, who identified the watch Ex. Pi, which was gifted by him to the complainant in the year 1978-79. Niranjan Dass Patwari P.W. 2 proved scaled site plan Ex. PA, which was prepared by him on the demarcation provided by Rishipal Singh complainant. ASI Shiv Singh P.W. 3 had recorded formal FIR Ex. PB on the basis of ruqa Ex. PB/2 along with endorsement Ex. PB/1. Rishipal Singh complainant appeared as P.W. 4 and deposed on the lines of his statement as Ex. PB/2 recorded initially. SI Gian Singh P.W. 5 stated about various steps taken by him during the investigation of the case. The evidence of the prosecution was thereafter closed. 6. When examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied the prosecution version and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case. However, no witness was produced by him in defence. 7. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments, believed the prosecution case but finally convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 392, IPC. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence brought on record. 9. The star witness of the prosecution is Rishipal Singh P.W. 4. He clearly stated in his deposition that he had seen the two accused in the light of the torch. One of the accused had snatched the wrist watch, identity card and Rs. 142.00 from his front pocket. During the investigation of the case, the wrist watch was recovered from the present appellant. The same was identified by Rishipal Singh P.W. 4. This wrist watch was gifted to Rishipal Singh by his uncle Sant Lal P.W. 1, who stated similarly. The identity card Ex. P2 belonging to Rishipal Singh was recovered from the possession of Daya Kishan accused. The same contained the photograph of the complainant. 10. The evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case, has a ring of truth around it. Though the learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out certain con tradictions and discrepancies but by no stretch of imagination they could be said to be material. Such like discrepancies could arise in the testimony of truthful witnesses, especially when they were being examined as P.Ws. after passage of a long time. Though the learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out certain con tradictions and discrepancies but by no stretch of imagination they could be said to be material. Such like discrepancies could arise in the testimony of truthful witnesses, especially when they were being examined as P.Ws. after passage of a long time. The occurrence had taken place on 6-6-1988, whereas the first witness of the prosecution, namely, Sant Lal P.W. 1 was examined on 2-2-1993. It may not be out of place to mention here that though the appellant was ar rested on 7-6-1988 and released on bail on 3-8-1988 yet, later on, the appellant absented from the Court on 7-6-1991. War rants of arrest were issued against the appellant. Afterwards, the appellant was found involved in another case, i.e. FIR No. 861 of 1991 and, accordingly, production warrants were issued, the appellant, accordingly, was produced in the present case on 7-5-1992. Finally on 3-6-1993, the appellant was released on bail when bail bonds were accepted. It was on account of absence of the appellant from the Court that the trial of the Court was held up. 11. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the conviction of the appellant under Section 392, IPC and the same is, accordingly, confirmed. 12. Coming to the question of sentence, it may be noticed that the appellant initially remained in custody as an under-trial for one month and 26 days. After his absence and subsequent production, the appellant remained in jail for one year and 27 days. He was convicted by the trial Court on 2-5-1994 and was taken into custody. On the following day, he was sentenced to RI for three years. He filed the present appeal in this Court in which he was granted the concession of bail on 31-10-1994. Thus, the appellant spent another period of five months and 29 days in jail as a convict. Thus, he has served an actual period of more than one year and 8 months out of the sentence of three years imposed upon him. 13. The occurrence had taken place in the year 1988. The appellant was in the age group of 18-20 years at that time. The appellant was also stated to be empty handed at the time of the occurrence and attributed causing of fist blows whereafter the two accused robbed the complainant of his possessions. 13. The occurrence had taken place in the year 1988. The appellant was in the age group of 18-20 years at that time. The appellant was also stated to be empty handed at the time of the occurrence and attributed causing of fist blows whereafter the two accused robbed the complainant of his possessions. Under these circumstances, it would be an exercise in futility if the appellant is sent behind the bars to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. Ends of justice would be amply met by reducing the sentence of imprisonment of RI for three years to that already undergone by the appellant. 14. Resultantly, conviction of the appellant under Section 392, IPC is maintained. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years imposed by the trial Court is reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine of Rs. 250.00 , along with its default clause does not call for any interference and is maintained. 15. Except for the modification in the sentence as indicated above, the present appeal fails and is dismissed.